S Huntley T/a SH Transport

Case Summary

Mr Pearce claimed unfair dismissal, constructive dismissal, failure to pay redundancy, and unauthorised wage deductions against his employer Shane Huntley trading as SH Transport. The tribunal dismissed the dismissal and redundancy claims as not well founded but upheld the wage deduction claim, finding the respondent unlawfully failed to pay £900 for work carried out between 30 December 2024 and 3 January 2025.

The tribunal found that the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, constructive dismissal and failure to pay redundancy were not well founded and accordingly dismissed them. However, the tribunal found that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay the claimant £900 for work performed between 30 December 2024 and 3 January 2025, as these deductions were not authorised under section 13(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and were not excepted under section 14.

• •Unfair dismissal under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
• •Constructive unfair dismissal
• •Failure to pay redundancy payment under section 135 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
• •Unauthorised deduction of wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996

Case No. 6010952/2025 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Glen Pearce Respondent: Shane Huntley trading as SH Transport Heard at: London South Employment Tribunal via CVP On: 01 April 2026 Before: Employment Judge M Da Costa sitting alone ATTENDANCE AND REPRESENTATION Claimant: In person, unrepresented Respondent: In person, unrepresented JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: Complaints of unfair dismissal contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, constructive unfair dismissal contrary to section 94 of that Act and the common law, failure to pay a redundancy payment contrary to section 135 of that Act and unauthorised deduction of wages contrary to section 13 of that Act 1. The claimant’s claims for unfair dismissal, constructive unfair dismissal and failure to pay a redundancy payment are not well founded and are dismissed. 2. The claimant’s claim for unauthorised deduction of wages is well founded and succeeds. Case No. 6010952/2025 2 3. The respondent failed to pay the claimant for work that the claimant carried out between 30 December 2024 and 03 January 2025, amounting to a total of £900. Those were deductions of wages, and the deductions were not authorised within the meaning of section 13(1)(a) of the 1996 Act or excepted within the meaning of section 14 of that Act. Those deductions were therefore unlawful. 4. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant £900 in respect of those unlawful deductions of wages. M Da Costa Employment Judge M Da Costa 02 April 2026 Note Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless a party asked for them at the hearing or a party makes a written request within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Public access to employment t…